Schedule 3
Flood and Water Management Bill
8:15 pm
Anne McIntosh (- Shadow Minister, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Vale of York, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment 149, in schedule 3, page 47, leave out lines 36 to 39 and insert—
‘(1) In this Schedule “drainage system” means—
(a) a structure designed to receive rainwater except—
(i) a public sewer, or
(ii) a natural watercourse; and
(b) any lateral drain or sewer communicating with a drainage system.’.
Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 150, in schedule 3, page 48, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
‘(3) “Lateral drain”, “sewer” and “public sewer” have the meanings given by section 219(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991.’.
Amendment 18, in schedule 3, page 48, line 8, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—‘“Sustainable Urban Drainage System” means a drainage system which—
(a) facilitates attenuation, settlement or treatment of surface water from two or more premises (whether or not together with road water), and
(b) includes one or more of the following:
(i) inlet;
(ii) outlet structures;
(iii) swales;
(iv) constructed wetlands;
(v) ponds;
(vi) filter trenches;
(vii) attenuation tanks, and
(viii) detention basins (together with any associated pipes and equipment).’.
Amendment 163, in schedule 3, page 48, line 12, after ‘the’, insert ‘natural’.
New clause 12—Sustainable urban drainage systems—
‘A full definition of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) is “Sustainable drainage systems or sustainable (urban) drainage systems: a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a more sustainable fashion than some conventional techniques (may also be referred to as SuDS).”.’.
Anne McIntosh (- Shadow Minister, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Vale of York, Conservative)
These are, in our view, extremely important clarifying amendments. We wish to make it clear that any surface water drain or sewer drains into a SUDS system rather than the public sewerage system. It is important that we understand and are clear about the definitions at the outset. My understanding is that a lateral drain or sewer connects the main border of a property with the main sewer. Can the Minister clarify that my understanding is correct? I have explained it briefly, but the Minister may want to explain further. As we said previously, we are concerned that we do not know for sure what these SUDS are, where they are, who owns them, who gave approval to the SUDS, who is currently responsible for them and who is maintaining them. We will go on to discuss what the potential is for various parties if a SUDS floods, but in this instance we believe it is important to say specifically that such a structure is
“designed to receive rainwater except...a public sewer, or...a natural watercourse.”
I would go further in explaining amendment 149. In my view, there are two primary drainage systems. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm whether my understanding is correct. The one common SUDS relates to a highway and takes excess water off a road, so it could be a ditch or a culvert, but it is probably connected not too far from a road. Those are probably easier to identify.
There is considerably less clarity about drainage systems relating to housing developments. For the sake of clarity, I asked the Environment Agency locally—its headquarters is in the Vale of York—to single out and identify some of those SUDS, which could be ponds or drains, and do not normally connect to a public sewer. The definition has implications for later amendments. The agency helpfully set out a number of SUDS in my own area. One is Rawcliffe ponds, which I imagine was dealt with during the construction of a major housing development in the York area of the Vale of York. The local environment agency described SUDS, and stated:
“Traditional drainage is designed to move rainwater as rapidly as possible from the point at which it has fallen to a discharge point, either to a watercourse or soakaway.”.
It went on to state that
“run-off from hard paving and roofing can increase the risk of flooding downstream, as well as causing sudden rises in water levels and flow rates”.
It would be helpful to understand where the surface water drains off, and whether the Minister would accept that it falls within the context of the definition.
Amendment 150 would mean that “lateral drain”, “sewer” and “public sewer” have the meanings that are set out in the relevant section of the Water Industry Act 1991. For the sake of clarity, I hope that the Minister will confirm that is acceptable. Amendment 18 defines a “Sustainable Urban Drainage System” as a drainage system as currently recognised in Scots law. I would ask the Minister to give a good reason if he believes that it would not be appropriate to accept a definition that already exists in one part of the United Kingdom. I hope he will find that definition even more encompassing than the one set out in amendment 149.
New clause 12 states:
“A full definition of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems”
is
“a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a more sustainable fashion than some conventional techniques (may also be referred to as SuDS).”.
The new clause and the amendments are meant in a helpful way to try and focus, if possible, on exactly what the Minister and the Committee understand by the definition of sustainable urban drainage.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
I echo the hon. Lady’s last comment—a desire for clarity in this section is extremely important. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s remarks, but amendments 149 and 150 seem to add clarity and definition to some of the provisions in the Bill, and therefore I suspect that they are welcome. However, we seem to be running into a little difficulty. As far as I understand, what are commonly known as SUDS—sustainable urban drainage systems—are a specific category of site-specific drainage constructions designed to ameliorate urban flooding and capture water in a localised area. We seem to be drifting into slight confusion between that and sustainable drainage in general, which is what the clause seems to address.
I have particular concerns about amendment 18, as it seems to add a very specific but actually quite inclusive definition of sustainable urban drainage systems, that in its deletion element would remove any broader definition of sustainable drainage. In semantic terms, I am not sure what that means for sustainable drainage that is not urban. In one sense it seems to be excluded, but the list includes things that might not be urban, such as constructed wetlands, which we have in an urban area in Cheltenham as part of a flood relief system at Cox’s meadow, which used to be a meadow and is now a more spectacular feature since the Environment Agency got to work on it.
I echo the closing words of the hon. Member for Vale of York: we need some clarity. Are we talking about broader definitions of sustainable drainage or the specific mechanisms and constructions that are more commonly known as SUDS?
Amendment 163 would simply insert the word “natural” into the phrase
“protecting and improving the environment”
in the definition of sustainable drainage. Of course, that would be removed if amendment 18 were accepted. This point harks back to our discussion on the meaning of sustainability. When I read the schedule, I detected a possible loophole because it could allow the management of rainwater in a way that a developer argues improves the environment, meaning the built environment. That means that whatever the developer proposed could be sustainable drainage under the terms of the Bill.
I am keen to reinforce the Bill’s environmental credentials by ensuring that a developer’s plan that would damage biodiversity, or compromise flood or water management on a more natural and environmentally friendly basis would not be allowed under the definition of sustainable drainage. At the moment, we have the slightly loose terminology of
“protecting and improving the environment”,
without any specific reference to the natural environment. I tabled the amendment because it is important to recognise the natural environment.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I shall begin by dealing with the trickiest question, which is what a lateral drain is. I will do my best. My understanding is that a sewer serves more than one property, a drain serves one property and a lateral is the part of a drain that extends beyond or outside the boundary of a property—I wish I had a flip chart. When there is a house and a boundary fence, the drain that goes beyond the boundary fence is the lateral that feeds into the sewer. Does that help?
Anne McIntosh (- Shadow Minister, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Vale of York, Conservative)
Obviously not all hon. Members can see this, but my understanding is—
Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)
I am not sure we can use visual aids in a Public Bill Committee. The hon. Lady will have to explain it.
Anne McIntosh (- Shadow Minister, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Vale of York, Conservative)
My understanding is that there is a building or property and that there is a sewer that connects the sewage and waste water from that building to the main sewer. My understanding is that the lateral drain runs from the boundary of the property to the sewer. It is quite important that we get that on the record so it is clear that we know what we are talking about for these provisions.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
Indeed. I confirm that the hon. Lady’s description was very good. Even without the diagram, it worked very effectively.
Let us move on to the trickier question of what count as SUDS under our definition in the Bill, as opposed to the Scottish interpretation, which I will come to in a moment. The EA’s description is not a bad one. In its view, SUDS are what slow down the flow and reduce the volume of flow to sewers, and they improve water quality and amenity. SUDS, of course, protect and improve the natural environment, but they can also improve the developed one. There are a variety of SUDS. They are not limited simply to hard engineering. The Scottish example and highly urbanised examples include highly engineered solutions, as well as more naturally landscaped solutions.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I will just expand on this a little.
SUDS could be quite attractive features that enhance the built environment through public amenity. They can provide functional spaces such as roads, car parks and parks that add to the drainage system.
The Bill provides for regulations to define SUDS further and that is the important point. There is a myriad of designs for sustainable drainage systems—I have seen many of them—for all sorts of geographical and topographical areas. These designs are constantly evolving in real time with the advancement of technology and with experience. This week, I wrote to Committee members with additional information on SUDS; I do not know whether they have received that. Regulations, accompanied by national standards for SUDS, will enable us to retain flexibility in defining what a SUDS is. That will ensure that we have drainage systems designed to help reduce localised flash floods flooding downstream and to slow down the rate at which areas begin to flood, as well as improving water quality and potentially enhancing the environment.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
I would like to challenge the Minister on one point. He talked about SUDS being applicable to a variety of environments, and yet the “U” stands for “urban.”
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
No.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
Yes, indeed. It is good to get clarity on this. Our interpretation is that these are not sustainable “urban” drainage systems. They are sustainable drainage systems and will have applications in urban areas, rural areas and everything in between. We are not going down the road of saying that this is either a hard technological solution or only to be used in inner cities; it has a much wider application. That is why it is difficult to find one definition that says, “This is what it is.”
A SUDS system is not exactly a sustainable “urban” drainage system—I am sorry, maybe our terminology is confusing. Our SUDS is the “SU” from “sustainable” with “DS.” It is a sustainable drainage system.
Anne McIntosh (- Shadow Minister, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Vale of York, Conservative)
This reverts to what the hon. Gentleman said earlier; I wanted him to complete his sentence. If I can be clear in my own mind, I think there are two different sets of systems and two sets of consequences that flow from them. The importance of understanding this correctly relates to ending automatic connection, which we come on to consider later.
We are all right, but we are all wrong to a certain extent. There are sustainable urban drainage systems that have a particular function in connection to taking water in urban areas where there are major housing developments. Earlier, the Minister said very specifically that he only wants to stop the automatic right to connect from these to the waste water infrastructure of the water companies. I am clear in my own mind—and I hope I can carry the Committee with me—that SUDS maintains a very specific legal meaning within the context of the Bill. There are other drainage systems—
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
On a point of order, Mr. Martlew, I think it might be extremely helpful if we stopped talking about “suds” and started talking about either SDSs, or SUDSs.
Anne McIntosh (- Shadow Minister, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Vale of York, Conservative)
I think a SUD has a “u” in it and an SDS does not have the “u.” I do not know how clear I can make it. The point is that in rural areas, there are—and the hon. Member for Cheltenham referred to it himself—
Anne McIntosh (- Shadow Minister, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Vale of York, Conservative)
I was just starting to enjoy myself. I want to be clear and press the Minister on this. SUDS, as opposed to SDSs, have a specific legal requirement.
Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)
You will have the opportunity to widen up the debate on this amendment.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
SUDS or sustainable urban drainage systems are by their definition—and within the Scottish Bill—more restricted in what they apply to. We do not want that restriction. I will come to the Scottish issue in a moment. For clarity, when I refer to SUDS I shall do as we have always done in respect of the Bill. Perhaps we should have called them SDSs, or come up with another name. When I refer to SUDS I mean our sustainable drainage systems. If I refer to the Scottish model, I will clarify matters by saying that I am referring to the sustainable urban drainage system.
Amendment 149 would extend the meaning of the term “drainage system” as outlined in paragraph (1)(a) to the schedule to include
“any lateral drain or sewer communicating with a drainage system.”
I understand where the hon. Member for Vale of York is coming from, but amendments 149 and 150 are not necessary. Among other things, paragraph 16(5) to schedule 3 already provides for the Minister to determine what the SUDs approving body should approve and adopt, by defining in regulations the term “sustainable drainage system”. The regulations will therefore define whether and when it is appropriate for a lateral drain or a sewer to be adopted by the SUDS approving body. A change to primary legislation is therefore not required.
Moreover, the development of the regulations will include public consultation. I know that I am being criticised for my love of consultation, but there is not as much as it sounds because some consultations are tied together. The consultation will ensure that the regulations are well considered and appropriate. If we accepted amendment 149, the opportunity for consultation would be missed.
I return to the question of whether lateral drains and sewers should be included in the definition of sustainable drainage systems. Paragraph 16(5) to schedule 3 gives the Minister the power to define them by regulation, and they will be considered if and when a lateral drain or sewer is subject to approval by the SUDS approving body.
I turn to paragraph 7(4) of schedule 3, which relates to the amendments. It provides for the Minister to set out by order what requires approval, and for exemptions to the need for approval when appropriate. The question of whether water courses or engineered channels require approval will therefore be considered under those regulations. It is unlikely that they would, but we would expect IDBs to work with the lead local authorities and the SAB, or the SUDS approving body. Furthermore, approval is required for a SUDS—I refer to our SUDS; otherwise I shall refer to the sustainable urban drainage system—built to take water from a new development or other construction work.
Without approval for the SUDS, developers cannot build a development, so IDBs are not developers in that sense. They are not building drainage systems in order to get consent for a specific development. Hence, it will not be necessary for them to seek consent. As I said, the regulations will be subject to a full consultation.
Amendment 18 and new clause 12 both seek to insert additional definitions of sustainable urban drainage systems. Amendment 18 aims to replicate the definitions in the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. Many good things come out of Scotland—not least whisky, which is almost as good as the Penderyn whisky from my part of the world.
Arrangements in Scotland are different, not least because Scottish Water is publicly owned, unlike in England, where the companies are privately owned and therefore have a commercial interest. In Scotland, a sustainable urban drainage system must meet build standards similar to what we propose in our national standards, before it is adopted by Scottish Water. Interestingly, however, that is by agreement. Approval of SUDS and the adoption arrangements are often held up because the developer and Scottish Water simply cannot agree.
In any case, Scottish Water is not responsible for adopting all SUDS. Those in roads are adopted by local authorities. SUDS in trunk roads are adopted by the Scottish Government. We believe that it is important, and in line with Pitt, to have clear and consistent arrangements. We developed our SUDS policies after two public consultations, as well as learning from experience in Scotland and looking at the wide impact of the 2007 floods in rural and urban areas. The Scottish Act also deals with the sewerage system as a whole. It deals with SUDS as well public sewers and public sewage treatment works, so there are some differences.
However, the amendments are not necessary, as the term “sustainable drainage” is already defined in the Bill under schedule 3 paragraph 2. It does not include the term “urban” because, as we saw in the 2007 floods, surface water flooding is both an urban and a rural issue,and SUDS can be used in both rural and urban settings.
The Scottish Act was passed in 2003. Since then, we have had the benefit of experience in understanding the complexities of surface water management and the downstream impacts of building developments in both rural and urban areas. Scotland has seen SUDS used in both rural and urban developments and so it feels right that our new definition—now widely used by practitioners—reflects what actually happens on the ground and will be delivered going forward.
Furthermore, paragraph 17 also defines single property SUDS as those that provide drainage only for a single property, giving a wider definition of SUDS than what is proposed in amendment 18—the Scottish definition. The amendments are therefore more limiting than what is already contained in the Bill. I commend the intention, but it is not necessary to make the change to the definition in this case.
The Bill also makes provision for SUDS—our SUDS—to be defined further in regulations in schedule 3, paragraph 16(5). I wrote to members of the Committee this week and I hope that they have seen the letter; if not, it will be in the mailbox. I have a copy here if anybody wants to see it later on. SUDS national standards, referred to in schedule 3, paragraph 5, which will be published after consultation—although we have some thoughts on it already—will also set out different types of SUDS techniques and their use. Defining sustainable drainage systems in regulations and then setting out the specific detail of different types of SUDS features in the national standards, rather than on primary legislation, also allows for flexibility to add new SUDS designs—and they are constantly coming forward—and new SUDS approaches as they are developed.
The hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire tabled amendment 163,inserting the word “natural” to paragraph 2(c) of schedule 3. As a result, the paragraph would state that one of the intentions of managing rainwater through sustainable drainage was
“protecting and improving the natural environment.”
I understand the spirit in which that is put, but curiously the amendment could actually prove extremely limiting. In fact, it does not reflect the wider environmental benefits delivered by SUDS in both the natural and the developed environment. By inserting reference to the “natural” environment, the amendment suggests that SUDS would offer protection onlyto natural environments that have not been interfered with through development. We do not want that to happen.
However, SUDS are extremely effective, as we have seen from examples that are already there, in protecting and improving the man-made environment. That is particularly true in urban areas, where the clever use of SUDS delivers drainage systems more attractive and effective than conventional drainage, as well as the additional benefits of improving water quality and reducing flooding risk. They can include natural SUDS solutions, such as ponds or reed beds, as well as hard landscaping such as artificial channels, which all improve the visual and physicalquality of the urban environment. I was looking at some amazing pictures today of SUDS development techniques. They are multifaceted, varied and many of them are very attractive. They can be dual-functional as well. SUDS can be in roads, car parks and playing fields that add value to the urban environment and benefit the communities.
The intention of the amendment may have been to emphasise the considerable benefits of using SUDS techniques that mimic natural features. However, given the ability of SUDS to protect and improve the man-made environment, as well as the natural environment, an amendment that suggested that SUDS should only protect and improve the natural environment may be limiting. I therefore ask the hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.